TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes assessment order due to jurisdictional limits</h1> <h3>Shri Om Parkash Seth Versus The Assessing Authority, Amritsar and Another</h3> The court quashed the fresh assessment order dated 4th November 1963, ruling that the Assessing Authority lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the fresh assessment order dated 4th November 1963.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to reopen the assessment after the period of four years.3. Scope of the remand order regarding the scrutiny of declaration forms under rule 26.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Fresh Assessment Order Dated 4th November 1963:The petitioner contended that since the assessment order dated 16th December 1960 was not set aside, no fresh assessment could be made for the year 1958-59. The Department clarified that no recovery was made under the December 1960 order and it should be deemed quashed as a necessary consequence of the Commissioner's revisional order. The court agreed with the Department, noting that the revisional notice covered both the February and December 1960 orders, and the omission of the December order in the final revisional order was inadvertent. Thus, the court found no merit in this contention.2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to Reopen the Assessment After the Period of Four Years:This issue was extensively debated. The Department argued that the fresh assessment was a continuation of the original best judgment assessment proceedings, not new proceedings. The petitioner argued that the fresh proceedings were essentially for assessing escaped turnover, thus falling under section 11-A of the Act, which prescribes a four-year limitation period.The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, which stated that assessment proceedings are pending until a final assessment is made. The court concluded that the finality of the assessment order is not disturbed by the Commissioner's revisional powers under section 21. Therefore, the fresh assessment initiated after the lapse of four years was without jurisdiction as it was essentially under section 11-A, which had a prescribed limitation period. The court quashed the fresh assessment order dated 4th November 1963.3. Scope of the Remand Order Regarding the Scrutiny of Declaration Forms Under Rule 26:The petitioner argued that the remand order restricted the inquiry to scrutinizing declaration forms for sales to registered dealers and did not permit consideration of returns that had escaped assessment. The court noted that the remand order directed the Assessing Authority to scrutinize necessary declaration forms before granting deductions under rule 26. Given the court's decision on the second issue, it was unnecessary to delve further into this contention.Conclusion:The petition was allowed, and the fresh assessment order dated 4th November 1963 was quashed. The court held that the Assessing Authority lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment after the four-year limitation period had expired, and the finality of the original assessment was not disturbed by the Commissioner's revisional powers. There was no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
